December 29
20th-century hoaxes prior to 1978
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge to decade categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: All of these are single-article categories failing WP: SMALLCAT. Only since 1978 are the hoaxes by year categories clustered enough to warrant keeping. For example, we don’t have Category:1953 hoaxes despite that Martian Monkey happened in that year. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - though it might be worth creating a Category:1960s hoaxes for the last three. Grutness...wha? 02:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to decade categories. The target has a lot of content which might usefully be distributed to populate these. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Decade categories have been created now, so they should become the new merge targets. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:1895 hoaxes
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, only 1 article. No other 19th century year has an article except 1874, which also fails WP:SMALLCAT for the same reason. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:1874 hoaxes
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, only 1 article. No other 19th century year has a category except 1895, which also fails WP:SMALLCAT for the same reason. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Various proposed provinces of Pakistan
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Moot. All these categs have been speedy deleted per WP:G5. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Recently created categories about individual proposed provinces, alleged proposed provinces, and spurious proposed provinces of Pakistan. If any of these justify having content on wikipedia, then this content should be added to articles (if there are sources at all – some of these names return zero relevant ghits). All of this is only a small part of the categorisation mess that one industrious user managed to create today. Feeling gnomish? Dig in the contribs. – Uanfala (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all per nom; the spurious ones may be eligible for G3. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 21:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- If the provinces are created we can create categories then. Pakistan politics is dominated by one province, so that there is a case for breaking it up, but this is probably the political agenda of opposition politicians. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Update All have been deleted per G5. – Uanfala (talk) 11:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Picture books by illustrator
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Children's picture books by illustrator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: No reason for such a specific category, particularly as there can be disagreement about whether a particular illustrated book is a "picture book" or not. Robina Fox (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- By far most of them are, and while Category:Picture books by Arthur Rackham is an exception, that particular category should also be deleted per WP:NONDEF. It occurs to me now that the subcategories are mostly awfully small and I wonder if we should upmerge the subcats rather than the parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Lists of people from Glen View, Harare
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. Only content was List of people from Glen View, Harare, which I have just deleted as an expired WP:PROD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Scope unlikely to allow more than one member —swpbT go beyond 16:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – delete the list as well as it only has 2 people on it. Oculi (talk) 19:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Upmerge, probably to both parents, though I am not sure. A better alternative would be to merge the list back to Glen View, Harare, as there is not yet enough content to merit splitting out the list. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Krzysztof Książek
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: No apparent justification for this eponymous category which only contains the title subject as a member. —swpbT go beyond 15:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unnecessary. The main article has BLP issues, though probably not serious ones. It says that he has made a recording but we do not have an article on that yet. Most of the article is about competitions he has won, but we do not allow Award categories (preferring lists). Peterkingiron (talk) 11:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:National Democrats (Norway, 1991) politicians
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: no consensus (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 13:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: No chance of this category ever being populated. The "party" had a few hundred members and ran once in one constituency over 25 years ago. The party is barely notable itself. Geschichte (talk) 12:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Kvng RTH
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Maintenance category created by a single editor for their own purposes - not appropriate. PamD 10:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @PamD: is there a specific policy that says editors are not allowed to create and maintain hidden categories for the purpose of improving workflow? There are a lot of maintenance categories already set up for this purpose. ~Kvng (talk) 15:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Judging by the category page, one user is adding this category to pages that they have worked on. A list or table in a page (or subpage) in user space would be a far more appropriate way of keeping tabs on work-in-progress, per WP:UPYES (Notes related to your Wikipedia work and activities). The category code
[[Category:Kvng RTH]] seems to be dropped into random places in the page text, and not at the bottom of the page with the other categories - for instance, in 44,100 Hz, it is placed after the text in the History section. The few articles where the category is placed with other cats seem to be where somebody has edited the page after the cat was added and applied MOS:ORDER, possibly as part of the AWB genfixes, such as this edit which indicates that the original placement was within the text. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Redrose64: this is a bookmark I use as I am working on reviewing content of an article. For larger and more complicated articles, I am unable to do a quality review in one sitting. This is a hidden category and the markers are not visible to readers and I don't beleive they are obtrusive to other editors. My use of these markers is explained where you would expect at Category:Kvng RTH. I ALSO try to explain as I go in edit comments. I do remove the marker once I have completed a review and then include the article in a list on my user page. I did WP:BOLDLY develop this method myself. If there a better way for me to bookmark articles I am reviewing, I am happy to consider. ~Kvng (talk) 15:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A list of pages kept on a user page and if unfinished an internal comment <!--Kvng RTH---> seems much more appropriate.Naraht (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Naraht: Your suggestion would require me to maintain the bookmarks and list manually and separately. It would also be more difficult for other editors to figure the purpose of <!--Kvng RTH--->. [[Category:Kvng RTH]] points them directly to Category:Kvng RTH where it is explained. My use is consistent with how we use hidden maintenance categories. Perhaps the objection has something to do with WP:OWN. That's not the case. I'm happy to have help with these reviews. I'm happy to rename the category if the current name is a violation of policy in some way. ~Kvng (talk) 16:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Kvng Yes, it would. That seems perfectly appropriate, given that I find the idea of (currently) 44 entries in partial review at the same time to be rather odd. If you can point me to any sort of other hidden mainspace categories for this sort of personal use I'll reconsider.Naraht (talk) 17:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Naraht: I don't understand why I need to stop doing something that is working well for me (and could work well for others too) just because it is odd, inappropriate or unusual.
- What I'm doing here is not visible to readers and is no more obtrusive to editors than your <!--Kvng RTH---> suggestion. Is there a better justification available for this deletion proposal? Do you need more information about my workflow and how this category supports my contributions to Wikipedia and testimonials from other editors about the results? ~Kvng (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Showing hidden categories is a standard options that readers may choose, so it *is* more obtrusive to editors when they view the article. You still haven't answered the question as to why there should be 44 articles that are all partially reviewed. And feel free to have those who have given you testimonials to chime in here.Naraht (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- 44? I count 74. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Redrose64 Thank you for the correction.Naraht (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Naraht: I like to give other editors time to review improvements I make during reviews. I will not do a good review of other's work if they make a lot of changes to a single article in a short period of time so I try not to inflict this onto my fellow editors. I try to do some amount of work on each article in this category every month. If I work on a few a day, 74 articles under review is reasonable.
- Hidden categories is an advanced option in preferences. You do need to be logged in for this to even work. I assume logged in readers is a very small percentage of page reads. AFAIK the option is not even available on mobile which is apparently 50% of Wikipedia readership. So what type of reader to you envision would be able to find and enable this and for what purpose? Hidden categories are generally used for maintenance and templates and many of them are pretty cryptic. I beleive it is unusual for even editors to make them visible. Is there a way to do a survey of how often this option is used? ~Kvng (talk) 16:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The category is unusual but Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and Kvng is doing great work with the category so it should be kept. The articles concerned are highly technical and get very little maintenance. Long-term usage of the category could be clarified because keeping such a category in an article for an extended period would seem unnecessary. Johnuniq (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, we do not have any other personal categories and we should not create a precedent for it. All of this can perfectly well be listed on one's user page. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Marcocapelle: please see my response to Naraht above. I need a better suggestion for tracking this on my user page. ~Kvng (talk) 16:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - this editor's use of their category doesn't appear to be unreasonable (except perhaps the number of articles), but if such categorization was allowed we'd soon have editors making unreasonable use of such categorization (e.g. to categorize every page they've edited) and it would cause extra work for other editor's to police it, to delete categories created by absent/banned editor's etc. DexDor (talk) 17:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @DexDor: you're saying that what I'm doing is reasonable but somehow will encourage others to do something unreasonable. Why not just deal with those unreasonable instances when or if they happen? ~Kvng (talk) 16:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not exactly what I'm saying. Dealing with the unreasonable instances and creating guidelines etc would be an unnecessary drain on editor time - much better to have a clear rule of no such categories. There are also possibly issues of the unusual use of category tags in text causing complications for tools (e.g. VE) and I'm not sure that editors should be placing notes for themselves in articles. Using a list instead of category may be less convenient for you, but consider the implications if this categorization was allowed - e.g. what if IPs add such category tags? What if such category tags are put on a category page?... DexDor (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - No policy reason given for deletion. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. No suitable alternative presented. I am willing to modify what I'm doing to address any WP:OWN objections. Unobtrusive to readers and editors. ~Kvng (talk) 16:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There aren't any guidelines on when hidden categories are inappropriate indeed. That just means we have to make ad hoc decisions here. And by the way, a suitable alternative was presented. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I presented an alternative in my post of 11:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC), sentence beginning "A list or table ..." --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I got that and this was discussed and the issue is what we consider suitable. Another potentially suitable alternative is for me to track my progress with paper and pencil. Using this category automates and makes things easier for me. Isn't automating maintenance primarily the reason we have hidden categories? ~Kvng (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Even if invisible, article sources should not be cluttered with user-specific junk. If you want a user-space list of things you're working on, make it a list, not a category, so that it will be only in your user space and not in the article source. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @David Eppstein: I am not aware of a user space capability to bookmark a location in an article. Do you have a solution for me? It sounds like you would not be OK if I started using Naraht's suggested <!--Kvng RTH---> bookmarking. ~Kvng (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment, a nice example of how confusing this is to fellow editors is this edit. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- As a comment to this, there are certain tools like AutoWikiBrowser that the default cleanup option moves all categories to the end of the article as an effort to use WP:ORDERNaraht (talk) 15:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: This is a misuse of the category system (don't say "but nothing says I cannot", we cannot attempt to list all inappropriate uses of a functionality). "Deleting" in this case includes persuading the user as kindly as possible to stop adding the category. I think the suggested comment as alternative would be a similar misuse of comments. Apart from an intolerable clutter if lots of people started adding their own private notes to articles, the notes are vulnerable to bots or editors tidying the source up, so not really reliable for the user concerned. The user is asking for alternatives:
- I use meta:User:Mirokado/WatchlistDeliverystamp.js (not publicised at all until now) to add a blue bar just above the top entry of the previous time I loaded the watchlist. This is a proof-of-concept for writing a bit of javascript to add cookies for pages you are in the middle of reviewing. You would need some sort of user interface to create and remove the placeholder, highlight it, and so on. Javascript for highlighting and moving to search results (you could search for examples) should provide further ideas
- I would find just such a placeholder to be not enough and I have two systems for keeping track of things I am interested in:
- a tree of bookmarks under a folder called "W" for Wikipedia on the browser bookmark toolbar (the browser jumps to the previous location if the page is still in cache) and you could create a subtree called "under review" or whatever
- a directory "wikipedia" on my data drive with subdirectories for pages I am working on (or would like to work on or ...). Those subdirectories contain all sorts of background files, lists of links and so on.
- Something else you could try would be a spreadsheet with columns for page title, next section to work on, reminder of current activity and so on. If you interrupt your work in the middle of a section you could record a snippet of text showing where you got up to. I have occasionally used a spreadsheet for managing many systematic changes to a group of articles.
- --Mirokado (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mirokado: Thanks for the productive suggestions. Not exactly what I need but useful ideas. ~Kvng (talk) 15:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I will be away for the next few days. I assume this will be deleted since I (and maybe Johnuniq) am the only one(s) supporting keeping this. I have captured the work I am storing in this category as best as I can. If we can hold off removing the [[Category:Kvng RTH]] category tags (bookmarks) in the 74 articles involved for 30 days that would be appreciated. I can remove them myself as I make other improvements. ~Kvng (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope. You don't get to dictate the CFD process. If the result is "delete", we will send in Cydebot (talk · contribs) forthwith, with no grace period, since that is established practice. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kvng: As Redrose64 says, delete means delete. So I have made a list of Category:Kvng RTH, and placed it in your userspace at User:Kvng/Category Kvng RTH. It's yours to edit or delete as you choose. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I think User:Redrose64 is being a bit harsh here. I'm !voting delete, but as long as it doesn't set a precedent or complicate things for the closing admin I don't mind the category being left for a bit while K empties it. DexDor (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:South-Central Asia
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Speedy delete. Done by Doug Weller (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Recently created cat. Redundant to Category:Central Asia and Category:South Asia. There is no such region formally known as South-Central Asia. Mar4d (talk) 07:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nominator's retionale. Plus the user who created this category removes correct categories and replace them with this made-up/pov category. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, redundant.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete Turns out the creator is a sock of LTA and globally locked account "Zeshan Mahmood". It should therefore be speedy'd per Db-g5. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- The article has been redirected to South Asia. The creator is technically correct: South Asia ought to encompass Southeast Asia and much of the Middle East (Southwest Asia), but South Asia is used as a synonym of the India subcontinent. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Paintings depicting the Massacre of the Innocents
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: no consensus, defaulting to keep. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, only two articles in here, and there is not even a parent Category:Massacre of the Innocents. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- We do have a main article on Massacre of the Innocents. This lists 4 paintings with articles, to which can be added that main article, making 5 . That is a little small for a category, but not exceptionally so. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That makes three articles about paintings, because one of the articles is about two paintings. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 00:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.